Hacker News Reader

Comment by Mozai | Hacker News Reader

So they bought an oversized office space, provisioned it like a warehouse, in a location that is horribly expensive to live near or get to. Are they surprised employees would rather not go there?

View on HN

Their office is/was 4 blocks from Montgomery BART. Not hard to get to at all.

They leased a warehouse and provisioned it like an office. People probably like to go there, but they like to not go there more. I don't think they are terribly surprised as they created the remote working policy deliberately. It is more a counterpoint to IBM and Yahoo and their policy of not allowing remote work any more.

Local employees do like to use it, but as we've grown, the majority of employees are not local to it. Fewer bay area employees proportionally, fewer events in SF (due to price, we tend to do meetups elsewhere -- and with recent customs concerns preferably not in the US for our international coworkers), fewer usage.

I would go there. No... I would move in there.

Do the bigger companies offer living spaces alongside their campuses yet? I mean having good apartments in 10 minute walking distance would be a huge perk in SF.

Does the phrase "company town" ring any bells?

This is a baaaaad idea.

Not when everything is going well. Grew up in one, it's better than any socialism and communism.

There are a lot of bad ideas that work great "as long as everything goes well".

Unfortunately, everything does not always go well, and some ideas are better at handling that than others.

The biggest problem with company towns was that they paid employees in company scrip instead of money. IIRC, that's illegal now under modern labor laws.

The second biggest problem was that companies used their company towns to force their social agendas on their employees. George Pullman would spy on employees' homes and firevict anyone living a lifestyle he didn't approve of. Tenant protections and anti-discrimination laws can take care of that (but we do need to strengthen our laws first... they're not quite there yet).

Dictatorships are really good for a country when everything goes well.

I had this idea when I was 10 years old, my mother said it was communism.

But really, I love my job but I wish there were options for living in subsidized accommodation.

What happens when you are fired? You get the bonus of an eviction?

That seems like an actual bonus though to me, one of the downsides of 1 year leases is that if you decide to switch workplaces you are on the hook for large sums of money. I would love a clause in my housing that I am automatically evicted if I terminate my current employment.

I'd like the idea of a super short commute from company dorms, but uprooting the wife and kids would be less than ideal. And what if you cannot secure a new gig quickly where you then move into their dorms? I guess you potentially take on the lease that you are trying avoid. I think I'll stick with home ownership :)

ideally, it's not either/or.

You use the dorms as a low cost local alternative to homeownership.

If you can't afford to live near your company, then it means company is not paying you enough...

Or, if the pay rate is flat regardless of location, you rationally decide to live like a king in Minneapolis instead of in my crappy apartment in Queens.

Would you also be okay with paid in company cafeteria credits?

They used to do it for summer interns in the Valley back a few years ago. It was indeed a huge perk and removed a lot of hassle.

Living two blocks from the office in a different highrise in San Francisco is pretty fun. Still ended up working remotely despite having an awesome team since it was so quiet at home though so I could get more done.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com